May 29 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court stayed out of
a pair of lawsuits in which two women said police used excessive
force by shooting them with Tasers.

The court rejected appeals from both sides in the cases
from Seattle, Washington, and Maui, Hawaii.

A federal appeals court said the officers couldn’t be sued
because, at the time, it wasn’t “clearly established” under
law that their actions violated the women’s rights. Still, the
court opened the door for lawsuits in future incidents by saying
the officers’ actions, if proven true, would be unlawful.

In the Seattle case, a stun gun was used on a woman who,
after being stopped for speeding, refused to sign the citation
or get out of her car. The Hawaii woman was shot with a Taser
after police came to her home to investigate possible domestic
violence and she tried to keep them from arresting her husband.

The officers appealed to the Supreme Court because the
decision could be used to justify future lawsuits against police
over alleged violations of the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment.

The decision “has made it extremely difficult for officers
to know when Tasers can be used constitutionally,” the officers
in the Hawaii case said in court papers.

Safer, More Effective

In a court brief supporting the officers, the Los Angeles
County Police Chiefs’ Association said Tasers are safer and more
effective than other methods of subduing suspects who resist
arrest. A U.S. Justice Department-funded study of 24,380 uses of
force by police in 12 departments showed that using Tasers
reduced injury rates for suspects by at least 65 percent, the
association said.

In the Seattle case, Malaika Brooks was stopped for
speeding in a school zone on Nov. 23, 2004. The appeals court
said she told police officers she wasn’t speeding and that,
while she would take a citation, she wouldn’t sign it because
she believed that would be an admission of guilt.

The officers threatened to arrest her, and Brooks refused
an order to get out of her car. After officer Donald Jones
showed her a Taser, she told the police she was seven months
pregnant. She continued to refuse to leave the car, and Jones
applied the Taser three times within a minute to her thigh, arm
and neck, according to court documents. The officers then pulled
her from the car and arrested her.

In Hawaii, four police officers went to the Maui home of
Jayzel Mattos and her husband Troy to investigate a possible
domestic dispute on Aug. 23, 2006. Troy Mattos was outside, and
two officers followed him indoors to ensure his wife was
unharmed, the appeals court said.

‘Touching an Officer?’

The husband insisted that officers leave the home, and
Jayzel Mattos stood in front of him and suggested everyone calm
down and go outside, the appeals court said. Officer Ryan Aikala
moved forward to arrest the husband. As Jayzel Mattos put up her
arm to keep Aikala from pressing against her chest, he said,
“Are you touching an officer?” and shot her with his Taser
without warning, the appeals court said.

Aikala used the Taser on Mattos in “dart mode,” which the
appeals court said propels a pair of probes into a person and
temporarily paralyzes the muscles throughout the body. The court
said police used “drive stun mode” on Brooks, which delivers
an electric shock but doesn’t override the body’s central
nervous system.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
said Jayzel Mattos was “the non-threatening victim of a
domestic dispute whom they have come to protect.” It said,
“The fact that Aikala gave no warning to Jayzel before tasing
her pushes this use of force far beyond the pale.”

Brooks’s alleged offenses were minor and she didn’t pose a
threat to the officers’ safety, the appeals court said. “Three
tasings in such rapid succession provided no time for Brooks to
recover from the extreme pain she experienced, gather herself
and reconsider her refusal to comply,” it said.